Board continues accessory‑apartment request after drainage, septic and driveway concerns

The Clinton County Board of Zoning Appeals on July 26 continued a special‑exception application from Paul Edwards for an accessory apartment and accessory structure on a lot in Madison Township, citing unresolved floodplain, septic, drainage-board and emergency‑access issues. Staff told the board the site is Lot 1 of a recently approved three‑lot minor subdivision (Edwards Acres) and that the petitioner proposes a primary dwelling and a detached accessory apartment. The proposed accessory unit would sit near the road and the main house farther back; staff flagged that configuration as atypical for an accessory unit because accessory apartments are intended to be secondary and located so homeowner oversight is practical. Technical issues prompted the continuation. Staff reported base‑flood elevation (BFE) and site elevations give “very little depth for gravity‑flow septic,” and soil‑test plans (min specs) submitted the day of the hearing had not been reviewed in time. Staff also said the proposed apartment site sits adjacent to a legal drain and may require approvals from the county Drainage Board and possibly a bridge or crossing. Staff recommended continuing the request so the petitioner can obtain drainage‑board and health‑department input and reconcile septic and floodplain details. Petitioner Paul Edwards said the accessory unit idea is recent and intended to house his 78‑year‑old mother; he said 2,000 square feet was an early figure and that a smaller unit might be appropriate. Edwards told the board he had discussed driveway options but had heard he “cannot cross that street,” and he acknowledged the site layout might change as he works through permitting. “The size of the property when this originally began was just for my house. This idea has been approached to me by my wife in the last few months. So that’s why it’s so raw,” he said. Board discussion emphasized emergency response and shared‑address concerns: staff and board members noted accessory units must share an address with the primary dwelling for 9‑1‑1 dispatch and that separate driveways far apart on the same parcel could impede emergency response. Staff advised the applicant to consider relocating the accessory unit or moving the primary structure so the accessory is clearly secondary and to consult the Drainage Board, the county surveyor and the health department about septic and crossing permits. Why it matters: Approval would permit an accessory dwelling on an already subdivided rural lot; unresolved floodplain, septic and drainage approvals — plus emergency‑access constraints — affect whether the accessory unit can be sited as proposed. The continuation avoids a denial that would require a 90‑day wait to reapply while giving the applicant time to obtain technical approvals. Next steps: The board continued the case and asked the petitioner to return with drainage‑board and health‑department determinations, revised soil tests or a mound system design if necessary, and siting/design revisions addressing the shared‑driveway/9‑1‑1 access issue. Staff indicated it would review submitted septic and floodplain details and share them with the board before the next hearing. Outcome: Motion to continue application CCDASH2025-00561 (docket 17-25-SE) for the reasons stated in staff presentation — motion passed by roll call, all present voting yes. Quotes (from hearing): “This idea has been approached to me by my wife in the last few months. So that’s why it’s so raw,” petitioner Paul Edwards said. Staff warned that separate driveways far apart could create a 9‑1‑1 response problem: “One of those houses… is not gonna get an immediate ambulance response because they’re required to share an address.”